Some people will they never just accept we're all just people

a dissapointing news item but hopefully it will be a wrong soon righted.

As additional info I've been to this area of france and the people are terribly homophobic. The government even want to suspend the Mayor for sanctioning this

eat me, drink me, click me

silly silliness
dunno wot else to say

Yes we are all just people..that's right...even the people challenging the recent changes...they are people too...

And if there is anything I have learnt about people in my almost 3 decades of life, its that people are VERY resistant to change.

It'll sort itself out, but most people could see this sort of reaction coming a mile off...give a bit of time...

Predictable.

*ahem* Sorry. I'm just frustrated on many fronts these days, and the resistance to this particular change really does put up a huge hurdle for Mand and I. All we want to do is be able to live our lives together, but it seems we've got to find another country to live in to do that....and immigrating is not easy.

Anyone know of an immigration lawyer?

SF....in need of hugs.

Yeah i read that on BBC news. It's so silly.
What difference does it make who you marry? Doesn't hurt anyone!

I found this very interesting.

Firstly from the viewpoint of the South African governments standpoint.

Secondly the conservative attitude of black south africans which seems to have been inherited years before. And the extremes to which this has come through from the Namibian president and that somewhat unpleasant fellow Mugabe.

I never realised it was so bad to not be hetro in SA. Now that realy takes courage to come out the closet with its such a high chance of being attacked and killed, especially with that stupid law about detaining them if you find them.

I think the law on detention went out with apartheid, anyhow all 'civilised' countries should offer ANY couple the right to marry surely banning discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation should already cover this although the issue with religious marrages is slightly more complicated considering so many religions are still openly homophobic and religion is such a touchy subject in many areas of the world

Here's the answer.

We have too many darn people. We need to cull a few and make some space. Then we can all spread out.

Then it won't matter what you do, you can do it and have no fear of reprisals from/attacks by intolerant idiots.

I'm all for living in a cave personally.

And Dai, yer right on the money about frisbees, I can hit a man at a 100 yards 9 times out of 10.

And another thing. Christians (no offence if you are one) are often among the first to critisize (sic) homosexuality, but if Adam and Eve had two sons, how the hell did the world get populated?

*ducks for cover from Burz*

Hehehe

I wont steal this topic, but man that is a fun debat


Anyhow, what is marrage? What is a civil union? Why is there a difference?

A big question, why are the tax laws differnt?

Perhaps before the question of should gays be allowed to marry can be answerd, those questions should be answerd.

Perhaps there is a combination of answers that can make it to where there is no need to even have a question over who can marry and who can only have a civil union.

umm, mags, i think that would be incest, rather than homosexuality.


does that mean that every single person on earth is inbred?

I guess it does.

The problem is that there's a lot of money in telling people what they can and can't do. And as long as we live in the society you see around you, the more money those people will make, and the more they will try to control everything.

Me thinks I have wandered from the path...

Huh?? Where is the money in telling two gay people they cant marry? Sorry to be an acomplis in pulling this off topic, but I had to ask that question.

I agree with Burz. There's no money in it.

Power, yes. Comfort, yes. But no money.

Personally, I think marriage is outdated as a legal term. Let people get civil unions and if people want to get married, they can do that in a house of worship.

Tons of money in it.

The people with the money don't want it. Look at Bush's contributors... and add up all the dollars contributed by the religious right.

Go to the Vatican, then go to ACLU headquarters and tell me which building is prettier.

See the money now?

The ACLU is the biggest anti-christian organisation out there. Anti-Christian Liberal Union. Get rid of the crosses but leave the Greek Gods. Hmm... anyhow

NYC, lets look at some facts:

Gay marrage, is it a US issue or a World issue? World issue.

Therefore it is bigger than Bush. Your anti-Bush sentiments could be better put to use elsewhere.

How old is the Vatican when compared to the ACLU?

Who has more supporters/followers?

The ACLU is an organisation of hate and moral perversion, while the vatican is a symbol of peace. It should look better


I think that the government should have nothing to do with who gets married. Marrage is something done before God, and as it is a religious term, the government should have nothing to do with it. A civil union is done before a judge or some other form of justice of the peace. Therefore it has more to do with the government. There should be no leagle difference in the definition. Two people, leagaly joined be they civily joined or married. The taxes should be the same, and I would think that the governments would get more money that way from taxes VS setting up a differnt Tax Bracket for civil unions.

I think the US should follow the UK's example and licence the building that does the cerimony or union vs. the people taking part.

Even though I don't agree with homosexuality, nor do I feel they should be "married", there should be no difference between a marrage and a civil union in the eyes of the government and things like insurance companies and what not.